From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: jtc@redback.com
Cc: GDB Discussion <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: xfer_memory(..., attrib, ...) post mortem
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 08:33:00 -0000
Message-id: <3AF9ECDC.3080304@cygnus.com>
References: <3AB064CE.91505C87@cygnus.com> <5mitl47zxo.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <3AB8CF6A.FDBC1B2D@cygnus.com> <5m8zlyx6no.fsf@jtc.redback.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00213.html

> I can't argue with anything you've said.  Whether it will work or not
> depends on our committent to execute the above plan.  I have no doubts
> about the first step, it's the second two that give me pause.  If the
> backwards compatible infrastructure "works" well enough, there is no
> incentive to complete the process.  When it comes to the decision to
> obsolete an target because no one has bothered to update to the new
> interfaces, we can't be swayed by the argument that we can't do that
> because the target is important.  IMO if it was really important, it 
> would have been kept up to date.

(Did I reply?)

Yes.  Ensuring that this happens could be politically tricky.  So far 
it's worked though - obsoleting targets has resulted in them being fixed.

To my amasement, that ARI table, has also turned out to be a useful tool 
in this task.  It lets me see what I should be atacking next.

	Andrew